Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: New York Giants Super Bowl XLVI Ring Unveiled

Cascadian Support - From the Timbers Army and Their 107IST Spokesperson

Complexity causes a lot of issues in a sound-bite world. It is hard to relay, and it leads to easy confusion. It can lead to 100% support of a 150 Away Fan section and allowance for any other away fan to buy a seat where ever they want to be simplified down to "limiting" away support.

It can also lead to me wearing a few different hats - North American soccer recruiter for SBN, Sounder at Heart Manager, Alliance Council member. Sometimes there are things that I can and can not talk about in each of those roles. Sometimes the blurring of those roles reduces my ability to communicate in others. On certain occasions I have gotten emails as if I am a member of the Sounders front office. My writing on the Sounders has led to limiting my communication with some Timbers blogs, and my past experiences as a Council member (and in the Supporters Summit) have conflicted with my ability as a writer as members of the Timbers Army have been unwilling to talk to me about certain issues on record. I wrongly took the several people who have said these things to me to be an official edict (the TA does a great job at message control) and did not directly contact their leadership.

That is rectified now as Garrett Dittfurth (Leader in 107IST and member TA) and I conversed at length via email regarding Cascadia Away Support after the tri-partite release from the three largest Supporters Groups for each club.

First the Release

Star-divide

 

Cascadia Supporters Groups Jointly Oppose 150 Seat Limit for Visiting Fans
Unified Call for Clubs to Reasonably Accommodate Traveling Fans in 2011
Portland, OR., Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, WA. -- October 22, 2010 --The Timbers Army, Emerald City Supporters, and Vancouver Southsiders have combined forces in order to jointly oppose limiting visiting support in Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland to the 150 tickets stipulated by Major League Soccer. The united supporters groups assert that visiting support adds greatly to the atmosphere of their home stadiums and that limiting the amount of visiting supporters to 150 is an insult to the tradition and history surrounding the Cascadia Rivalry and undermines the growth of Major League Soccer in the Pacific Northwest.

In the NASL days thousands of fans packed cars and buses traveling to and from Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver. The USL proved to be no different with each group sending hundreds of fans to their rival cities in support of their hometown team. In the past decade, traveling support has increased each year between the Cascadia Clubs and in 2010 each supporters group has sent as many as 750 fans to US Open Cup matches, pre-season and regular season matches between the three teams. At the cusp of the three clubs returning to the highest professional level in North America the supporters groups have been left in the dark with rumors emanating from Seattle that owner Joe Roth has decided that only 150 visiting supporters will be allowed in to, "ensure the safety and security of the Seattle fans while keeping the integrity of the home crowd and the great atmosphere." The Cascadia supporters groups strongly disagree with that sentiment.

"If Seattle limits traveling support at 150 in Qwest Field our front office would likely do the same to Seattle at the very least if not Vancouver as well," said Dave Hoyt, President of Portland's 107 Independent Supporters Trust. "It is unacceptable that any of the three clubs will limit traveling support to a mere 150 seats when the demand is far higher and all three stadiums can accommodate, at a minimum, 1,000 away supporters in a safe and comfortable manner."

"Obviously our stadium can accommodate traveling supporters," said Keith Hodo, President of Seattle's Emerald City Supporters, "According to page 30 I.14 C of FIFA football club regulations clubs are recommended to allocate 5% of the seating in their stadium to the away support. We (ECS) feel that our club should heed this recommendation and exceed it, offering as many seats as either Portland or Vancouver are willing to bring people. This will only enhance the atmosphere in the stadium and increase the profile of football here in the States."

"A 150 fan limit simply denies the reality and passion all three sets of supporters have for their club and the fact many will travel regardless of artificially imposed limits, " said John Knox, president of the Vancouver Whitecaps supporter's organization. Knox continued, "The Southsiders strongly believe that there needs to be a cohesive, unified policy among all three clubs that provides for a safe and fun fan experience for visiting Cascadia supporters while maximizing the opportunity to travel in 2011 "

The three supporters groups strongly encourage traveling support from all cities in the Cascadia rivalry.
-- There should be no limits on traveling support and there should be a designated section for away fans. Traveling supporters on another team's home turf electrifies the atmosphere and increases the earnestness in supporting your own team.
-- Simply letting visiting fans purchase individual tickets throughout the three stadiums will create more chaos and a higher potential for incidents all three groups want to avoid.
-- Work together to find acceptable solutions to security concerns. The collective front offices should work with their supporters groups to assure the safety and security of both the home and away fan.
-- Major League Soccer stands to benefit from this rivalry. In 2011 the eyes of the league will be set squarely on the Pacific Northwest. Do not rob the league and the three clubs represented from becoming the pride of Major League Soccer.

I actually agree with the sentiment and the goals of all three groups, but I think that they expect too much. "No limits" and "unlimited" have both been used, and no club would agree to that. First and foremost a club's stadium is for its own fans. Similar to when I talked with John Knox, I started with asking where Portland would be able to put thousands of traveling Sounders fans.

Obviously capacity needs to be part of the discussion. PGE Park's capacity has been said to be expandable up to 24K for exhibitions and USMNT games if they were to choose Portland as a destination. For the 2003 women's World Cup they were able to fit 30K in PGE. At this point I think the matter is a little more complicated than just saying PGE is not capable of handling traveling supporters. There are always ways to work around a problem and the point of all of this is to emphasize that we want a solution to be found to accommodate as many traveling supporters as possible.

It is important for all Seattle fans/supporters to remember that the TA really is much like them. They love their team and want what is best for it. They also want you there in significant numbers and safely.

Yes most of the safety issues would be easily dealt with if there was simply separate entrances and a separate seating area. Nobody wants an unfortunate situation to occur but the reality is the 107ist board can't control everyone that gets on a bus to go to Seattle anymore than the ECS can control everyone that gets on one of their buses to Portland. After the incident in Seattle where the Timbers fan was allegedly a victim of "hooliganism" and the way the media pounced on it it's clear that the media in this country is focusing a little more on instances like this surrounding soccer. You and I both know that incident wasn't hooliganism and there will most likely be far more instances of "hooliganism" surrounding this weekends college football game between Oregon and Washington. The best solution is to disarm the situation by separating the supporters.

That suggested separation of supporters is of key importance. It is part of MLS policy, and in fact when a group travels they have a specific contact with the organization hosting them to help ensure that security is adequate for BOTH sides. This was one of the small adjustments that was made at the Supporters Summit '09 here in Seattle. You may recall that there were Timbers Army and Southsiders at every event, this was done at my suggestion and with the cooperation of MLS, the Seattle Sounders and all of the host Supporters Groups here in Seattle. Garrett thinks that was a great initial opening for MLS to start understanding the Cascadia Derby.

I think that the Supporters Summit was the start of MLS finally realizing what they have on their hands within the Cascadia Rivalry. All we want down here is a good final resolution for all the supporters groups and safe and secure trips for those supporters groups to our three cities.

Many have felt that I have pointed fingers at Portland, and while it may come off that way, it is only because I think the stadium there will be the most difficult one in which to find a solution that doesn't punish their local fans for having Seattle so close. I am of the firm belief that thousands will head down on a weekend match against the rival city.

We would be able to enjoy their bars, their hotels, our win in a game with more meaning than just a pre-season match or a 3rd Round US Open Cup during the week. But at the same point the Timbers themselves need 20,000 regulars in attendance more than they need 5,000 Sounders fans once. Most of their policies will be to ensure success over a season, not 2-4 matches a year.

For all the sniping at myself that has occurred, or the sniping at Joe Roth, let's note that the Timbers front-office has not stated an official position to the TA at this time.

I believe the only people that could speak with any authority on whether or not our front office has insinuated that the blame should be placed on Seattle would be members of our 107ist board. Chatter on message boards, Twitter, or Facebook would hardly qualify as authoritative on the subject. The openess our front office has given the "fans" in general has been limited to Merritt saying that they are working with the other clubs and that the fans of all three teams should be pleased. So far the supporters groups have not been consulted or asked about this.

For all the criticism that the Sounders Front Office has received in regards to this issue, let's not that at least they are communicating with us about it. They have heard our voices, through Council, Advisory Board, and other discussions they know exactly what Sounders fans/supporters want. Still, there is no official resolution, not from any side and while the season is four months away, let's also note that season ticket renewals, or first time purchases are starting now. Each team will want as many of those as possible, and without a quick resolution there will be season ticket holders in each community forced to move at least twice a year in order to satisfy more than the 150 minimum.

I asked Garrett how much would be enough.

We do realize the issue is more complex than "unlimited" travel. At this point I don't want to put a certain number on how many seats I think would be enough. I think that from past experiences with the US Open Cup matches and Community Shield that at least 1000 would be necessary.

And we get back to complexity. What these businesses have to decide, particularly in Portland with its smallest of stadiums, is how many happy visitors are necessary to increase TV ratings? How does that offset the upset season ticket holders that would normally be in those sections? How do we sell seats to out-of-town guests that we refuse to offer to locals?

Those are tough questions for any business, generally unique to sports, and yet they need answers now so that we have months to prepare for 2011.

Comment 41 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

That statement he made that sums this all up...
The openess our front office has given the “fans” in general has been limited to Merritt saying that they are working with the other clubs and that the fans of all three teams should be pleased. So far the supporters groups have not been consulted or asked about this.

The supporters groups – the ones most likely to be bringing the largest numbers away – have not been consulted in this process by any of the 3 front offices, from what I’ve heard.

They’re essentially treating ECS, TA, and Southsiders like kids at Thanksgiving dinner. Sending us off to the kids table in another room while the “adults” talk about the issues.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

Eternal Blue, Forever Green. Sounders 'Til I Die.

by Michael Wiegand on Nov 5, 2010 11:40 AM PDT reply actions  

You are absolutely WRONG

Seattle has consulted with the ECS in private as well as the Alliance Council on two occaissions.

Seattle’s consultations with the Council lead to the “controversy” being created.

Seattle has been more open than any other MLS team.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Nov 5, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

Glad to be proven wrong, then.

Happy our front office is being transparent about it.

But if Portland’s lack of capacity is one of the sticking points in reciprocating ticket allocation (to whatever extent) and Merritt Paulson hasn’t said word-one to the TA, that’s still a big issue.

If all 3 ownership groups are discussing it, then all 3 SGs should be roped into the conversation as well – not just ECS.

Eternal Blue, Forever Green. Sounders 'Til I Die.

by Michael Wiegand on Nov 5, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

Clarification

I and other members of the 107ist board have discussed ticket allocations with Merritt Paulson and/or Mike Golub on at least 5 separate occasions over the past few months. We have not yet received word on what the final allocation number will be but we have been consulted every step of the way.

Each club has had talks of some form with each of their supporters groups, but have shied away from bringing them to the main negotiating table to argue in their own right. Paulson has told us that he is advocating strongly on our behalf and I take him at his word. He understands the PR benefits of creating a strong rivalry and using that to establish the Timbers more firmly in Portland’s pro sports landscape. We have been told that the Southsiders have had similar talks and walked away feeling that the Whitecaps front office “gets it” as well.

by Daaaaave on Nov 5, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Daaaaave

You either need to come out as to who you really are, or stop speaking in direct contradiction of what the official statements of the 107ist.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Nov 5, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

And maybe you can simmer down a little

“If Seattle limits traveling support at 150 in Qwest Field our front office would likely do the same to Seattle at the very least if not Vancouver as well,” said Dave Hoyt, President of Portland’s 107 Independent Supporters Trust. “It is unacceptable that any of the three clubs will limit traveling support to a mere 150 seats when the demand is far higher and all three stadiums can accommodate, at a minimum, 1,000 away supporters in a safe and comfortable manner.”

I have the privilege of being a 107ist board member.

As I said earlier, I am not contradicting anything Garrett said. I am clarifying that, while Garrett is correct that we have not been an active part of the negotiations between the clubs, Paulson has kept his promise of openness by communicating with us often with updates and time lines for an announcement.

The question of whether we were consulted is a bit more thorny. We have had discussions and they’re well aware of our concerns. They have said they will advocate on our behalf in negotiations between the teams. Is that consultation? I am confident they are working to get the best allocation they can. That is not to say that we wouldn’t like a seat at the big table, but we’ll probably have to work that out once the teams make their announcement and our supporters groups put our heads together and discuss options.

by Daaaaave on Nov 5, 2010 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sorry, you were one of the people that led to a line of conversation with Garrett

as you called me a liar on my blog manager’s blog.

I take that fairly personally.

I know that SSFC’s FO tried to arrange that a few leaders from each major supporter group was on a conference call during the last meeting. I don’t know if that occurred.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Nov 5, 2010 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

And I'd love to chat with you

I’m not an antagonist.

I am a “supporter of supporters”

and I love this game as much as anyone.

This has never been an issue about me, but about pointing out that the easy solution that so many have advocated isn’t that easy.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Nov 5, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

In my personal opinion

I never thought it would be easy, just eminently sensible and worthwhile.

Please understand that when the Timbers Front Office came to the Timbers Army more than a year ago to start to discuss different facets of stadium renovation, ensuring enough game day tickets would be available in whole sections to support away travel was one of the very first topics we made sure they knew was important to us. I understand your concerns about 1,000 away supporters in a 20,000 seat stadium, but I am convinced that the Timbers will make every effort to support as many Seattle fans as they possibly can. The final total may be less than 1,000 on the nose, but it will be significantly closer to that number than 150.

I cannot speak for the difficulties of Seattle and how their seating and season ticket holders could be impacted by traveling fans, but we are committed to ensuring that traveling fans will always have their own dedicated space in the Timbers stadium. Luckily, the stadium renovation and openness of the Timbers front office has given us the opportunity to plan out this development since the beginning of the process. I understand, and fully sympathize with, the juggling Seattle will probably have to do in order to keep up.

by Daaaaave on Nov 5, 2010 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

You previously made a claim

that no one from the TA would talk to you. Since I’m on all the relevant media email lists prominently displayed on our website, I can categorically state that we have never turned down a media request from anyone. I’m interested to know how you made your request for a statement and to whom.

This communication challenge would also seem to extend to the Sounders’ board room, since we never received a request to participate in a conference call either. In fact, this post was the first I’ve heard of anything of the sort. A pattern seems to emerge where observers are told the Timbers Army are making themselves unavailable so other people can, sometimes unfairly and inaccurately, summarize our efforts and positions for us. Obviously any representative group would take issue with this. My only problem is ensuring that we get a chance to answer any question put to us.

by Daaaaave on Nov 5, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

I had contacted TA members in the past

Not people that are authorized spokespeople. The TA does a great job at message control, and I always got nos from the people who were not authorized to speak.

That issue will never occur again.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Nov 5, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks for the response.

That’s a bit more reasonable sounding on the part of the front offices.

Eternal Blue, Forever Green. Sounders 'Til I Die.

by Michael Wiegand on Nov 5, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

5% works for me

5% of 36,000 is 1800. Open up a couple of supporter sections up in the 300s and leave the base 36,000 or whatever the 2011 baseline is for Sounders fans. We’ll get our normal MLS sell out, they can go hang out upstairs.

Do NOT give them Hawks Nest. That has to be for Sounder supporters. You can untarp the 300s based on demand—just keep selling those for away fans. If they want to ferry 4000 up from Portland, give them 4000 up there. Our 36000 downstairs will just have to out shout them.

by joesz on Nov 5, 2010 11:45 AM PDT reply actions  

How would you like to be the sales guy that has to tell someone from Seattle

“we only sell those seats to Portland fans. You can’t have them”

Will those conversations help or hurt the sport as it attempts to grow?

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Nov 5, 2010 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Isn't that what happens in any other game anywhere else?

There’s a huge section for away support at Huskies games. My relatives that are UCLA alumni come up whenever they play the Huskies, and I go sit in the UCLA section with them. (hey it’s a free game)

I understand the point you’re making, but it doesn’t seem like this is a situation unique to us.

by chrisperry1983 on Nov 5, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, it is only in college sports

and non-American soccer where this occurs

There are NO seats held aside for travling NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA fans

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Nov 5, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Thats a great point that is forgotten

The Sounders FO has refused to open up more seating even though their own message boards and blogs on their official site are filled with people asking them too. How can they say we won’t open up more seats, but then open up more seats for fans of another team. The seats almost have to be part of the normal seating configuration.

by DarthGreedo on Nov 5, 2010 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Training the sales agents is going to be a key issue

You’re right, the F.O.s in each of the cities can’t be seen to be shutting down the local fan. But with good training it shouldn’t be an issue. The correct response from a sales agents should be:

“I’m sorry [sir or madam] we’re holding this section open to traveling supporters for the general safety of everyone. We’re dedicated to creating a great atmosphere for everyone. I have a number of open seats I can suggest in other parts of the stadium…”

by Dizzo on Nov 5, 2010 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

If we open up the top

If we open it up for them, why not sell as much as we can to seattle fans as well. Sell it super cheap if we have to, might as well get in as many people as possible to buy beer and hot dogs.

by lysander on Nov 5, 2010 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

If the demand is there for 40,000 SSFC fans

Then open it up all the way there too—maybe for 2011 stick the Portland/Vancouver fans in the east upper deck, and if the demand is there for SSFC additional seats, open the west for that. Unless I’m seriously misunderstanding your question…

by joesz on Nov 5, 2010 11:59 AM PDT reply actions  

I'm not sure I understand your comment

Are you saying open up 40K for the Cascadia games or for the entire season? I could see the demand there for the rivalry games, but I don’t think the Sounders could sell out 40K/game for the whole season.

by ubelmann on Nov 5, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Per game

Perhaps try opening x amount more in each the east and west upper deck for Cascadia games, and keep selling up until say 2-4 hours before game time. Untarp based on demand. For all we know we’ll fill up 45,000 net, or only 40,000 net. I can see how it might be too much trouble to untarp sections based on last minute demand, but… who knows? Try that experiment on the home opener in 2011 as well, and pick a random game, like Houston coming in. Maybe the demand will surprise even the FO.

by joesz on Nov 5, 2010 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Here's something I've been wondering about

It seems like the easiest place to put additional away fans in Qwest is to put them in the upper deck. There are all kinds of seats there, right? Well, what happens when some away fans decide it would be absolutely hilarious to start throwing streamers, etc. over the upper deck onto the lower deck?

by ubelmann on Nov 5, 2010 1:01 PM PDT reply actions  

That's not an adequate response

If that’s the only plan, this will happen at every single game, and that is not acceptable.

by ubelmann on Nov 5, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

No, it's not

These are foreseeable problems and there should be plans in place to deal with these problems. Bringing in away support is supposed to enhance the game experience, not hinder it. If things are flying down from the upper deck to the lower deck, that will negatively affect the game experience.

by ubelmann on Nov 5, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

I've read that it costs a considerable amount of money to open up more of the upper deck of Qwest.

As far as I understand they need to sell a large portion of seats for it to be financially viable to open upper deck sections. It seems this is due to having to pay more employees for concessions, security, cleaning, and so on. Anyone know more about this or if this is one of the main reasons the FO is so trepid about opening upper deck sections for two games.

by Kix on Nov 5, 2010 2:43 PM PDT reply actions  

That seems like its more the team coming up with BS reasons so they can continue to produce artificial demand.

They can’t come straight out and just say that they aren’t opening up the upper deck because they want to be able to charge more for the existing seats.

by Robert on Nov 5, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Of course the operative word is “Seems”. Unless you have solid information to this effect you are just assuming the worst.

by Perrinbar on Nov 5, 2010 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Artificial demand?

I don’t think there’s much more demand out there at the moment. USOC final didn’t sell out. The playoff game had about 1K lower attendance than the last regular season home game. The game vs. Monterrey had great attendance for CCL, but if there was really so much extra demand, they should have sold over 30K for that game, and they didn’t. None of the friendlies sold out.

by ubelmann on Nov 5, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Can someone tell me what the meaning of this phrase is?

“There should be no limits on traveling support and there should be a designated section for away fans”
I’m curious as to how we have a designated section for away fans and not have a limit to the number of away fans we have. This is a very incoherent principle to be arguing for.

-Ben R.

by reesebw on Nov 6, 2010 12:16 PM PDT reply actions  

That's been one of my problems with the ideal from the start

But because Seattle has 30,000 empty seats, and Vancouver will have 25,000 empty seats it is easy for one club demand huge access that two sides will not be able to see when they travel to a stadium with at most 5,000 empty seats

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Nov 6, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Sounder at Heart is a blog about the Seattle Sounders FC, with occasional forays into Democracy in Sports, Roster Management, Soccer Statistics and Life in Puget Sound. We are not the actual Sounders blog.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
On "fake turf" in Seattle, 2012 edition
Small
Andy Rose!
Gopher2_small
2012 MLS Team Salary info VS Performance

Recent FanPosts

Acerimmer_small
Eddie Johnson Scores on Michael Gspurning? Yes indeed!
Paraguay_small
Sounders #awaysupport
Small
What's our line-up vs. Dallas?
Me_in_scarf_small
Vancouver Away- tickets available to all
Small
Sounders pursuing Del Piero?
Tubshot_small
Where The Badges At?
Small
Fredy's headers and HAIR

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Sounder at Heart exists on Facebook - Like Us

Follow SounderAtHeart on Twitter

Sounder At Heart on Twitter

follow me on Twitter

Follow the rest of us on Twitter

Sounder At Heart (Site Feed)

Sidereal (MLS stats)

Jeremiah Oshan (top 10 soccer journalist on Twitter, Baby!)

Aaron Campeau (Villa, Mariners)

Dave Clark (beer, specfic, mideast)

Brian Floyd (all Seattle sports)

Nos Audietis (podcast stuff, snark)

Chris Coulter (photos, academy)


Managers

Tiny_dave_with_scarf_small Dave Clark

Oshan_small Jeremiah Oshan

Seattlesoccerscene_small sidereal

Nos Audietis Crew

Avatar_small Aaron Campeau

254350_1953423628277_767159_n_small dano_seattle

Authors

Img_0349_small malcontentjake

Devlin_small sum anon

Small dennyoffside

Ravelry_logo_small Abbott Smith

Special1tv_o_small Timm Higgins